Long-Term Effects of Upgrading to Biventricular Pacing: Differences with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy as Primary Indication

Non-Pharmacological Treatment of Heart Failure-From Physical Activity to Electrical Therapies: A Literature Review

Heart failure (HF) represents a significant global health challenge that is still responsible for increasing morbidity and mortality despite advancements in pharmacological treatments. This review investigates the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions in the management of HF, examining lifestyle measures, physical activity, and the role of some electrical therapies such as catheter ablation, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and cardiac contractility modulation (CCM). Structured exercise training is a cornerstone in this field, demonstrating terrific improvements in functional status, quality of life, and mortality risk reduction, particularly in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation, premature ventricular beats, and ventricular tachycardia aids in improving left ventricular function by reducing arrhythmic burden. CRT remains a key intervention for selected HF patients, helping achieve left ventricular reverse remodeling and improving symptoms. Additionally, the emerging therapy of CCM provides a novel opportunity for patients who do not meet CRT criteria or are non-responders. Integrating non-pharmacological interventions such as digital health alongside specific medications is key for optimizing outcomes in HF management. It is imperative to tailor approaches to individual patients in this diverse patient population to maximize benefits. Further research is warranted to improve treatment strategies and enhance patient outcomes in HF management.

Upgrading right ventricular pacemakers to biventricular pacing or conduction system pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Guidelines recommend patients undergoing a first pacemaker implant who have even mild left ventricular (LV) impairment should receive biventricular or conduction system pacing (CSP). There is no corresponding recommendation for patients who already have a pacemaker. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing device upgrades. The primary outcome was the echocardiographic change in LV ejection fraction (LVEF). Six RCTs (randomizing 161 patients) and 47 observational studies (2644 patients) assessing the efficacy of upgrade to biventricular pacing were eligible for analysis. Eight observational studies recruiting 217 patients of CSP upgrade were also eligible. Fourteen additional studies contributed data on complications (25 412 patients). Randomized controlled trials of biventricular pacing upgrade showed LVEF improvement of +8.4% from 35.5% and observational studies: +8.4% from 25.7%. Observational studies of left bundle branch area pacing upgrade showed +11.1% improvement from 39.0% and observational studies of His bundle pacing upgrade showed +12.7% improvement from 36.0%. New York Heart Association class decreased by -0.4, -0.8, -1.0, and -1.2, respectively. Randomized controlled trials of biventricular upgrade found improvement in Minnesota Heart Failure Score (-6.9 points) and peak oxygen uptake (+1.1 mL/kg/min). This was also seen in observational studies of biventricular upgrades (-19.67 points and +2.63 mL/kg/min, respectively). In studies of the biventricular upgrade, complication rates averaged 2% for pneumothorax, 1.4% for tamponade, and 3.7% for infection over 24 months of mean follow-up. Lead-related complications occurred in 3.3% of biventricular upgrades and 1.8% of CSP upgrades. Randomized controlled trials show significant physiological and symptomatic benefits of upgrading pacemakers to biventricular pacing. Observational studies show similar effects between biventricular pacing upgrade and CSP upgrade.

Comparison of de novo versus upgrade cardiac resynchronisation therapy on clinical effect and long-term outcome

BACKGROUND

The benefit of de novo cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) implantation in selected patients with heart failure is well known. The number of upgrade procedures is increasing but data on clinical response and outcome are less well documented as compared to de novo implantation.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and outcome of CRT upgrade procedures in patients with existing cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs).

METHODS

Baseline characteristics, change in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, echocardiographic parameters, life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias, all-cause mortality and mode of death were evaluated in CRT patients with the comparison between de novo and upgrade CRT procedures.

RESULTS

About 410 patients (CRT upgrade/de novo CRT, n = 97/313) were followed for 63.5 ± 38.1 months. Upgrade patients were older (75.5 ± 8.1 vs 69.9 ± 10.7 years; p < 0.001), had more often an ischaemic cause of heart failure (58.8% vs 45.4%; p = 0.021), a higher NYHA functional class (p = 0.004) and a higher comorbidity burden. Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was higher in the de novo CRT group (8.4 ± 9.9 vs 11.0 ± 10.3%; p = 0.035). Clinical response was similar between both groups (60.5 vs 62.5%; p = 0.793), as was mortality at 1 year (8.2 vs 5.8%; p = 0.351) and at last follow-up (33.0 vs 28.8%; p = 0.447). The proportion of cardiovascular related deaths was similar between both groups (46.9% vs 38.9%; p = 0.531).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CRT upgrade procedures have similar symptomatic improvements, as well as 1 year and long-term outcome as compared to patients with de novo CRT implantation.

The therapeutic effects of upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy in pacing-induced cardiomyopathy or chronic right ventricular pacing patients: a meta-analysis

Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) or heart failure accompanied with chronic right ventricular pacing (CRVP-HF) has no established treatments. We aimed to carry out a meta-analysis of published studies about the therapeutic effects of the upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients of PICM/CRVP-HF. The PUBMED, EMBASE, MEDLINE, OVID databases, and Cochrane Library were systemically searched for relevant publications. Data about the improvements of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), NYHA functional class (NYHA-FC), and the CRT response rate was extracted and synthesized. Mean difference (MD), odds ratio, and standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated as the effect size by both fixed and random effect models. We included sixteen studies (four about PICM and twelve about CRVP-HF). The total sample size of PICM/CRVP-HF patients was 924. Upgrade to CRT improved the LVEF by 10.87% (95%CI, 8.90 to 12.84%) and reduce the NYHA-FC by around one class (MD, -1.25; 95%CI, -1.43 to -1.06) in PICM/CRVP-HF patients overall. Upgrade to CRT seemed to improve LVEF no less than de-novo CRT (SMD 0.24; 95%CI 0.05 to 0.43; P < 0.05). This meta-analysis suggested that upgrade CRT could improve the cardiac function in PICM/CRVP-HF patients. This strategy may be considered in these patients but require more evidence about the efficacy and procedure-related complications from prospective studies or randomized controlled trials.

Mortality and Heart Failure After Upgrade to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Background

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is effective in treating advanced heart failure (HF), but data describing benefits and long-term outcomes for upgrades from a preexisting device are limited. This study sought to compare long-term outcomes in de novo CRT implants with those eligible for CRT with a prior device.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study using data from a provincial registry (2002-2015). Patients were included if they had mild-moderate HF, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35%, and QRS duration ≥ 130 ms. Patients were classified as de novo CRT or upgraded to CRT from a prior device. Outcomes were mortality and composite mortality and HF hospitalization.

Results

There were 342 patients included in the study. In a multivariate model, patients in the upgraded cohort (n = 233) had a higher 5-year mortality rate (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.59-5.15; P = 0.0005) compared with the de novo cohort (n = 109) and higher composite mortality and HF hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-4.37; P = 0.0003).

Conclusions

Implantation of de novo CRTs was associated with lower mortality and HF hospitalization compared with upgraded CRTs from preexisting devices. It is unknown whether these differences are due to the timing of CRT implementation or other clinical factors. Further work in this area may be helpful to determine how to improve outcomes for these patients.

Complications associated with cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrades versus de novo implantations

INTRODUCTION

A significant number of patients undergo upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). These patients tend to differ from individuals undergoing de novo CRT implantations both in terms of their baseline demographics and the etiology underlying their heart failure. Areas covered: There are several factors that need to be considered when upgrading patients to CRT, such as, venous patency. Potentially, these conditions can cause issues which may result in procedures being more difficult than de novo implantations. This article discusses these issues and compares the rates of procedural-related complications for CRT upgrades and de novo implantations. It discusses the proportion of patients that are likely to respond to CRT with each intervention. Expert commentary: Understanding the relative risks of CRT upgrades versus de novo implantations is important to help operators select the correct initial device and counsel patients accordingly. Growing experience with image-guided implantations and endocardial pacing may prove to be particularly relevant to patients undergoing CRT upgrades.

De novo implantation vs. upgrade cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Patients with conventional pacemakers or implanted defibrillators are often considered for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Our aim was to summarize the available evidences regarding the clinical benefits of upgrade procedures. A systematic literature search was performed from studies published between 2006 and 2017 in order to compare the outcome of CRT upgrade vs. de novo implantations. Outcome data on all-cause mortality, heart failure events, New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class, QRS narrowing and echocardiographic parameters were analysed. A total of 16 reports were analysed comprising 489,568 CRT recipients, of whom 468,205 patients underwent de novo and 21,363 upgrade procedures. All-cause mortality was similar after CRT upgrade compared to de novo implantations (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.88-1.60, p = 0.27). The risk of heart failure was also similar in both groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.70-1.32, p = 0.81). There was no significant difference in clinical response after CRT upgrade compared to de novo implantations in terms of improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (ΔEF de novo - 6.85% vs. upgrade - 9.35%; p = 0.235), NYHA class (ΔNYHA de novo - 0.74 vs. upgrade - 0.70; p = 0.737) and QRS narrowing (ΔQRS de novo - 9.6 ms vs. upgrade - 29.5 ms; p = 0.485). Our systematic review and meta-analysis of currently available studies reports that CRT upgrade is associated with similar risk for all-cause mortality compared to de novo resynchronization therapy. Benefits on reverse remodelling and functional capacity improved similarly in both groups suggesting that CRT upgrade may be safely and effectively offered in routine practice.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospero Database-CRD42016043747.

Effects of Upgrade Versus De Novo Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy on Clinical Response and Long-Term Survival

Background—

Benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on morbidity and mortality in selected patients are well known. Although the number of upgrade procedures from single- or dual-chamber devices to CRT is increasing, there are only sparse data on the outcomes of upgrade procedures compared with de novo CRT. This study aimed to evaluate clinical response and survival in patients receiving de novo versus upgrade CRT defibrillator therapy.

Methods and Results—

Prospectively collected outcome data were compared in patients undergoing de novo or upgrade CRT defibrillator implantation at 3 implant centers in Germany and Hungary. Clinical response was defined as an improvement by at least one New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class. CRT implantation was performed in 552 consecutive patients of whom 375 underwent a de novo and 177 an upgrade procedure. Upgrade patients were more often implanted for secondary prevention, suffered more often from atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia, and had more often a non-LBBB (left bundle branch block) wide QRS complex, and lower left ventricular ejection fraction. Upgrade procedures were associated with a lower response rate compared to the de novo group (57% versus 69%, P univariate=0.008, P multivariate=0.021). During the follow-up of 37±28 months, survival was worse after upgrade compared with de novo CRT defibrillator implantations (hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.22–2.24; P =0.001) even after careful adjustment for important baseline variables (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.20–2.34; P =0.002) and after propensity-score matching (propensity-adjusted hazard ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.08–2.95; P =0.023).

Conclusions—

Both clinical response and long-term survival were less favorable in patients undergoing CRT upgrade compared to de novo implantations.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy is appropriate for all patients requiring chronic right ventricular pacing: the pro perspective

Long-term right ventricular pacing has deleterious effects on the left ventricle (LV). The risk of pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) seems to be lower in patients with a normal LV ejection fraction (LVEF). Patients developing PICM respond favorably to a cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrade, suggesting that the dysfunction is partially reversible. Biventricular pacing has emerged as a treatment and/or prevention of PICM. Cumulative pacing greater than 40% of the time is considered the most important risk factor for PICM. No organizational guidelines exist for preventive biventricular pacing. The decision to pursue biventricular pacing should be individualized.

The changing landscape of cardiac pacing

A number of trials have shown that irrespective of baseline QRS duration, left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and heart failure are more common in patients with right ventricular (RV) than in those with biventricular (BiV) pacing. By contrast, preliminary results of the BIOPACE trial (follow-up 5.6 years) yielded a disappointing comparison of RV vs. BiV pacing. Pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy (PIC) may occur in patients with normal and abnormal LV ejection fractions (LVEF) and tends to occur if there is RV pacing more than 40 % of the time. Yet, some pacemaker-dependent patients do not develop LV dysfunction. PIC can be improved in about two thirds of patients by upgrading to a BiV system and the results are comparable to de novo BiV pacing in patients with a wide QRS complex. The findings of the BLOCK HF trial (2013) suggested that patients requiring pacing virtually 100 % of the time might benefit from BiV pacing irrespective of the LVEF (< 50 %), manifestations of heart failure, QRS duration, or functional class. These characteristics would generate many patients for BiV pacing. However, these recommendations should now be weighed against a more conservative approach based on the recently announced results of the BIOPACE trial. Organizational guidelines recommend BiV pacing for bradycardia irrespective of QRS duration for patients with LVEF < 35 %. At this time, BiV pacing for antibradycardia therapy (irrespective of QRS duration) has to be individualized in the setting of a normal or decreased LVEF (> 35 %) and according to the expected percentage of RV pacing. The benefit of BiV pacing should be considered against procedural complications, which are more frequent than with traditional RV pacing.

The role of biventricular pacing in the prevention and therapy of pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy

Right ventricular (RV) pacing produces well-known long-term deleterious effects not only on already compromised, but also on the normal left ventricle (LV). The activation pattern mimicks that of left bundle branch block, with delayed activation of the LV free wall, and results in electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony. Long-term mandatory (100%) RV pacing, increases LV dimensions and decreases the ejection fraction. Many of these negative effects of pacing can be overcome by biventricular pacing. In this review, we describe the characteristics of pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy, its incidence, and the use of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) for its therapy and prevention. The gaps in the current organizational guidelines for using CRT in the treatment of bradycardia are identified, and goals for future research are discussed.

Profile of St. Jude Medical's Allure Quadra quadripolar pacemaker system for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Congestive heart failure is a major public health epidemic and economic burden in the USA and worldwide. Cardiac resynchronization therapy is an effective therapy for treating congestive heart failure in conjunction with pharmacologic therapy. The average congestive heart failure admission costs approximately US$ 8 billion annually. Current cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker systems from various manufacturers deliver therapy-utilizing bipolar leads including the left ventricle, with electrode spacing ranging from 8 to 22 mm. The Quartet LV™ lead model 1458Q (St. Jude Medical Sylmar, CA) is a quadripolar lead with a 4.0 Fr. tip electrode and three 4.7 Fr. ring electrodes located 20, 30 and 47 mm from the tip. The Quartet lead and Allure Quadra TM allows 14 pacing configurations, providing benefits, including reductions in phrenic nerve stimulation, reduced pacing thresholds, improved battery longevity and potential reductions, in non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy. In addition, there is cost benefit data from utilizing quadripolar technology compared with traditional bipolar cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators and cardiac resynchronisation therapy

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) have become standard of care in modern treatment for heart failure. Results from trials have provided ample evidence that CRT, in addition to its proven benefits in patients with symptomatic heart failure (New York Heart Association [NYHA] class III), might also reduce morbidity and mortality in those with mildly symptomatic heart failure (NYHA class II). As a result, the 2010 European Society of Cardiology guidelines now recommend CRT for both patient populations. In this review we summarise and critically assess the landmark randomised clinical trials REVERSE, MADIT-CRT, and RAFT. Furthermore, we discuss the rationale and available evidence for other emerging indications of CRT, including its use in patients with a mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (>35%), in those with a narrow QRS complex (≤120 ms), and in those with concomitant bradyarrhythmic pacemaker indications. We also focus on patients who do not respond to CRT, and on CRT optimisation.

Current concepts in pacing 2010-2011: the right and wrong way to pace

OPINION STATEMENT

Over five decades have passed since the first permanent cardiac pacemakers were introduced into clinical medicine. Evolving technology and falling costs have demanded adaptation to clinical practice and implantation trends and, with the advent of evidenced-based medicine, the specific roles and benefits of individual pacemaker technologies have never been so carefully scrutinized. Pacing mode choice continues to be a subject of great controversy, and there are great regional variations in practice. We believe that single chamber atrial pacing use (AAI/R) has become an anachronism that should generally be abandoned (obviously with rare exceptional cases) and be replaced by dual chamber pacemakers (DDD/R) equipped with modern pacing algorithms that minimize patient exposure to ventricular pacing. Also, in patients with atrioventricular (AV) block, randomized clinical trials have failed to show improvement in clinically relevant outcomes such as mortality, stroke, and heart failure, particularly in the elderly, which has led some to advocate that DDD/R devices should never be offered to elderly AV block patients. However, we believe that the elderly, like the young, come in many "shapes and sizes" and individualized medicine compels us to consider each pacemaker candidate as unique. Implanting DDD/R devices in chronologically older, yet physiologically younger, patients is justifiable and good medical practice. Where right ventricular (RV) pacing is necessary and unavoidable, physicians should consider routinely placing RV leads on the RV mid- or outflow tract septum because these location are as good, if not better, for patients than the current practice of RV apical lead placement. In patients with AV block and asymptomatic yet moderate to severely depressed left ventricular systolic function, primary cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) should be strongly considered. Compelling clinical trial evidence does not yet exist to indicate that CRT should be the standard of care in patients with AV block and intact left ventricular systolic function. Right ventricular septal lead placement remains a reasonable option.